Alex Fishman, Yediot Achronot’s veteran security correspondent, and one of the few Israeli journalists skeptical about the official government version of the Eilat terror attack, confirms what many of us knew all along: it was a tissue of lies. The government reported originally that the Popular Resistance Committees of Gaza were responsible for the attack and that the attackers were affiliated with it. Then an Egyptian newspaper reported that its military killed three of the attackers and that they were Egyptian. That’s one of the reasons many of us doubted the official version. Now Fishman reports that in fact, the military investigation confirms that all the militants were Egyptian. It also raises the possibility that at least one of their member was an active duty policeman.

It was Fishman (along with myself and Idan) who asked where the bodies were and why they weren’t identified by Israel. The reporter claimed that the IDF was playing a strange game of poker with Hamas, demanding that the latter acknowledge the dead were Gazan before Israel would release the bodies.

This explains why there were no mourning tents in Gaza and no reports there of any fighters killed by Israel. Ehud Barak knew the knowledge that the attackers were not Gazan, as he claimed, would sink Israel’s entire plan to blame Gaza on the attack and its plan to take vengeance on it instead of the source of the attack, Egypt.

Idan and I have also reported that it is extremely suspicious that Bibi Netanyahu prohibited the Shabak chief, Yoram Cohen, from testifying before the Knesset intelligence committee on the Eilat attack. This is an unprecedented breach of protocol on the part of the prime minister’s office. It can only be explained by the fact that Bibi doesn’t want Cohen to expose the government to any more ridicule than it’s already facing regarding its ineptitude surrounding the Mavi Marmara attack, and the frantic extraction of Israeli diplomats frm the Cairo embassy while under assault by Cairo protestors. The prime minister can only explain away so many lies and so much incompetence at any given time. Defending the lies he and Ehud Barak spread about Eilat might be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Miraculously, the IDF still claims, according to Fishman, that the PRC was the author of the attack. Idan Ladau, who’s been one of the sharpest Israeli bloggers covering this issue has written a comprehensive rebuttal of the government’s version. One thing that he notes, and which Amira Hass confirmed in her reporting in Haaretz, is that the Eilat attack was a very complex, sophisticated one which required tremendous logistical and organizational skill. Anyone who knows anything about the PRC knows that their cadre receive elementary training and possess nothing but very light weapons. They simply don’t have the skills, manpower or sophistication to pull this off. The statement by a PRC representative below confirms this.

This report by Time reveals that not only did the PRC deny responsibility, but they continue to do so even after Israel murdered their top commanders in a drone strike:

“If the Israelis have any proof, give it,” says Ahmed Yusuf, a former Hamas official who now runs a Gaza think tank. “I met with these people for the Popular Resistance. They said, ‘We want to distance ourselves from what happened in Eilat and wondered why they were threatening us.’ ”

…”I mean, the operation was still on when they assassinated our people,” says a spokesman for the PRC who goes by the name Abu Mujahed. “The way they controlled and managed to fight for hours, it shows that whoever’s behind it has a very strong organization structure. It’s like they have a military background and experience in how to do this.”

PRC militants, he says, undergo “normal basic military training — small arms, nothing fancy.” Recruits specialize either in small arms or the swift firing of mortars and rockets into Israel. “You have to understand, we’ve only worked against the Israelis on the Gaza front,” says Abu Mujahed. “Up to now, the decision is, you only can operate within your geographical border. This has to do with our strategic thinking. It has to do with our relationship with others — Egypt and the other factions.”

For any who aren’t familiar with Palestinian militant groups, they’re not shy about claiming responsibility for terror attacks against Israelis, especially ones in which there are shahids, martyrs for the Palestinian resistance. Yet still the PRC refuses to conform to the Israeli narrative.

A group calling itself “Jama’a Ansar Beit al-Maqdis” (Ansar Jerusalem, or Supporters of Jerusalem), claimed responsibility for the August 18, 2011, multi-stage attacks in Eilat, Israel, in which eight Israelis were killed.

No Israeli media have reported this fact nor seriously challenged the government version that the PRC was responsible.

Landau, who has a delicious ironic sense of humor, credits a group of us “crazy, deluded” bloggers for pursuing this story and not allowing the government to maintain its tissue of lies unchallenged. Note that this is almost precisely the language used by Haaretz’s Avi Issacharoff, in deriding my own version of events. So far, Landau’s and my version is holding up pretty well. Issacharoff’s, not so well.

Landau writes a damning critique of Israel’s behavior after the attack:

Israel knew that the terrorists were not from Gaza and did not receive their orders from Gaza. Even further, Israel dragged Hamas into an escalation of conflict against the latter’s wishes. Israel knowingly lied to its citizens about the origin of the attack and the purpose of its targeted killings [of five PRC leaders and a one year old baby] in Gaza.

The real reasons for the lie: a) the government of Israel and its security apparatus wanted to drag the Palestinians into a cycle of blood vengeance just before the UN statehood vote, thereby strengthening the militant elements on the other side [i.e. Hamas, PRC at the expense of Fatah] and to frustrate the options for [non-violent] popular resistance, because every militant killed in Gaza further inflames their colleagues; b) to take the wind out of the sails of the J14 social protest movement and divert the anger of the Israeli public outward [toward Gaza]; and c) to frustrate those demanding drastic reductions in the military budget, part of the platform of the social justice movement.

The IDF investigation further reveals that the only Israeli soldier to be killed in the attack was actually killed after dark by Egyptian forces hunting the terrorists and that the five Egyptian security forces killed were shot in return fire from Israeli forces. It sounds like the situation was a holy mess. Any legitimate investigation would want to figure out how to avoid this slaughter so that both sides could be shooting at the bad guys instead of killing each other.

Hot off presses, not even available online yet. I’ve posted scanned version of article on my Facebook profile.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

September 21, 2011 1:51 AM

fuzzy

got it. thx!

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

September 21, 2011 6:09 AM

Hezi

So, summing up:

IDF concludes that the attackers were Egyptian while the attack was planned by the PRC. No conspiracy, no nothing.

Is Israel still the “bad guy” in this attack?

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

September 21, 2011 1:42 PM

David

Personally, my mind just reels trying to comprehend the level of conniving and lies issued by the Israeli government. It just goes on and on and on. Is the whole government sociopathic? I think so. I think the government is homocidal sociopathic.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

September 21, 2011 9:26 PM

Hezi

I see.
Israel is struck by terrorists who stopped vehicles, went up to their passengers and executed them as they probably begged for mercy. The terrorists then fire rockets at a bus, and a suicide bomber boards another bus, detonating it.

Israel responds to the attack and later responds to it by killing those who sent the terrorists. A completely reasonable response by my book.

And yet, in the eyes of the anti-Zionists, Israel is the “homocidal maniac” in this story. Not the terrorists, not those who sent them – but the Israelis, who were attacked in the most brutal manner possible.

Israel is struck by terrorists who stopped vehicles, went up to their passengers and executed them as they probably begged for mercy.

Spare us the histrionics. They attacked mostly with RPGs which they used on the one car in which 4 victims were killed. As heinous as that is, the scenario is nothing like you portrayed. Shall we compare the IDF assassins who murdered young children with kill shots while they lay on the street bleeding? Yes, it’s happened more than once. Do you really want to get into this stupid tit for tat game?

Yr portrayal of the attack & response is also erroneous. Egypt too pursued the attackers & killed 3 of them. The IDF also invaded Egypt & murdered 5 Egyptian soldiers in a murky incident. Reasonable response to invade a sovereign country with whom relations are on tenterhooks?? You’re of course also not examining why Israel was attacked, which I would’ve expect a hasbarist like you to do.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

September 22, 2011 12:13 PM

bran

Your argument boils down to pointing out that the terrorists where not residents of Gaza.

But – so what? Is there some kind of terrorist manual for dummies that requires terrorists to have the same citizenship as the organization that operates them? How does the fact that the terrorists where Egyptian absolve the PRC? Going over from Gaza to Sinai is simply a matter of crossing a short tunnel. Why shouldn’t the PRC use Egyptian terrorists? Terrorist organizations are opportunistic by nature. They use any means and any manpower available to achieve there goals.

After carefully reading all your writing about the eilat terror attacks your basic argument still seems to me incomprehensible.

My argument doesn’t “boil down” to anything. You’ve dumbed it down for yr own convenience. The fact is that PRC has never before engaged in a terror attack in which it used solely Egyptian attackers. So it’s up to you to prove that PRC has the means & sophistication to do so. Can you do so?

It’s far more than a “little matter” to travel the 100 miles from Gaza to Eilat to commit a terror attack with 20 militants & multiple weapons & logistical needs.

I’d say it’s your comment that is “incomprehensible,” or rather simplistic to the point to torpitude.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

September 22, 2011 6:09 PM

Tom P.

I’m not exactly a fan of Netanyahu but this is very misleading. “The government reported originally that the Popular Resistance Committees of Gaza were responsible for the attack and that the attackers were affiliated with it.” The new report in Yedioth Aharonot says the attackers were Egyptians *affiliated* with the same popular resistance committees in Gaza (which also explains why there were no mourning tents in Gaza). The official version may or may not be true, but it hasn’t changed at all.

Sorry, but the PRC, as the Time Magazine interview with its representative makes clear, operates only within Gaza. It has never undertaken any terror activity outside its borders. There are no Egyptians “affiliated” with it. And if there are, I’d like some proof more than the word of an unnamed source somewhere deep in the IDF flackocracy.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

September 21, 2011 10:36 PM

Hezi

I find it quite telling that you choose to prefer the word of a terrorist organization spokesman, rather than believing the IDF.

Just goes to show how much you’ve fallen in love with the terrorists.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

September 21, 2011 11:41 PM

Elisabeth

1 Terrorist spokesmen are usually glad to claim an operation, so why would the PRC deny it? (And as Richard has pointed out earlier: Their leaders were not in hiding when Israel took ‘revenge’ on them. If they had been involved they would have taken some measures for their safety.)

2 The IDF lies very often.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

September 21, 2011 11:51 PM

Hezi

Terrorists lie whenever it suits them. If the PRC thinks that lying will perhaps save them from the wrath of the IDF or Hamas or embarrass Israel – they will lie. They’re terrorists, they kill kids generally aren’t very nice towards their own.

Richard and others seem extremely skeptical and critical when examining statements made by Israelis. They cross check their sources, weave complex conspiracy theories and mistrust anything espoused by the Israelis, whether it is the IDF, the government, the media, or simply Israeli civilians. Strangely, it seems that when analyzing statements made by terrorists (Hamas, PRC, …) all of their analytical skills suddenly disappear – no talk of conspiracies, “hasbara drones” – these are only relevant for Israelis, not terrorists. For me it is amazing how Richard’s critical thinking disappears when he’s talking about Iran, Hamas and other murderous entities.

This is called a double standard, indicative of an extremely unhealthy bias towards Israeli Jews.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

September 22, 2011 12:20 AM

Elisabeth

“If the PRC thinks that lying will perhaps save them from the wrath of the IDF or Hamas or embarrass Israel – they will lie.”

They were attacked even before the mess in Eilat was completely over. They denied they were involved AFTER their leadership had already been killed. So saving themselves from the wrath of the IDF is nonsense.

I’m afraid the only ones lying around here are Barak, Bibi & the IDF. The PRC has very little reason to lie. After all, taking credit for a terror attack in which Israelis were killed is something that most Palestinian militant groups would do willingly. So why reject the “honor?”

You mean you don’t believe the IDF acts at times as a national terrorist organization? Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference. Actually, I’m not just relying on the PRC. I’m relying on the combined evidence offered by Alex Fishman of Yediot, Idan Landau, Al Masry Al Youm and my own research, which are far better more reliable sources overall than the IDF. Do you really not know the regularity with which the IDF lies about virtually anything it wishes to??

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

September 22, 2011 12:09 PM

Hezi

So, according to you the IDF is a “national terrorist organization” and you also implied that the attack against the Jewish civilians was justified. Yet, not a single word of condemnation against the actual terrorists who committed these attacks. It’s all the IDF’s fault, and anyone who dares to portray the attack in a somewhat emotional manner is automatically a “hasbarist” and “hysterical”.

Tell me, Richard, what is the difference between you and a Hamas spokesperson? Your rhetoric has become visibly one-sided, violent and hateful. Only a twisted mind can take this attack against Israeli civilians and spin it against the Israeli government.

At times, the IDF engages in little more than state sponsored terrorism. The Mavi Marmara massacre was an example. The killing of 300 children during Cast Lead another.

you also implied that the attack against the Jewish civilians was justified

Major comment rule violation. Lying about my views is a big no-no. I said in fact that the attack was “heinous.” So no, I didn’t imply anything of the sort. What I did say was that as long as Israel continues the Occupation & continues being in a state of high friction with its neighbors, attacks like this will happen.

Yet, not a single word of condemnation against the actual terrorists

Not a single word except “heinous.” Of did you miss that? So for mischaracterizing my views deliberately, you’ll be moderated. And any future rule violations may cause your privileges to be further restricted.

anyone who dares to portray the attack in a somewhat emotional manner is automatically a “hasbarist”

No, yr characterization wasn’t just “emotional,” it was wrong. What you described never happened. The victims died and their death & the attack on them was heinous. But the way you said the attack happened never did.

Tell me, Richard, what is the difference between you and a Hamas spokesperson?

Another comment rule violation. The diff. is that I’m no friend of Hamas & have often criticized them just as I criticize the IDF & Occupation. But you missed that didn’t you?

Your rhetoric has become visibly one-sided, violent and hateful

I detest lies, injustice and brutality whether from one side or the other. You only detest the brutality of Hamas, but are blind to Israel’s brutality, which makes you an apologist and yes, hasbarist.

Your next comment rule violation will be your last. If you care about remaining for any length of time read & follow the rules.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

September 22, 2011 6:04 PM

bran

“There are no Egyptians “affiliated” with the PRC”.

I find this statement to be highly dubious. How does the PRC get its weapons if not thru Egyptian affiliates?

Anyone in Gaza can secure a weapon through the tunnels. The PRC doesn’t need Egyptian members to do so. To commit a terror attack is far more complicated & requires much diff. commitments than to smuggle a gun through a tunnel.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

September 22, 2011 6:06 PM

bran

But that’s exactly my point. The weapons don’t just appear in the tunnels. They are brought there by Egyptian collaborators, in fact a fairly sophisticated and widespread net of Egyptian collaborators.

So claiming the PRC doesn’t affiliate with Egyptian terrorists is obviously plain wrong. Of course there are connections. The only point of debate is the exact nature and magnitude of the connection.

The nationality of the eilat attackers is irrelevant to the question of who masterminded this attack. Nothing you provided till now confirms or refutes Israel’s assertion (based presumably on intel sources) that PRC was behind the attack. Ultimately it all boils down to the question how much credibility one is willing to give to the Israeli intelligence. At this point I see no reason to reject the official Israeli version.

After reading the whole story and all the comments I have to say that comments like Hezi’s drive me straight into mr Silverstein arms. Even my initial questions are gone. I didn’t get the answers but they are futilities compaired with the attacs and accusations. My restect mr Silverstein. 🙂

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

disable

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.